Debates of Feb. 4th, 1998

Money Laundering

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the G-7 financial action task force has been critical of Canada for our failure to eliminate money laundering activities in this country. International criminals are the beneficiaries of inaction on our part.

Will the solicitor general please advise this House what Canada is doing to address this serious problem of international money laundering.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the member's question.

Very specifically, the ministry is seized with the question of money laundering. That is the reason I recently visited Vancouver and visited the co-ordinating committee on organized crime. That is the reason why last fall in our first ever statement on organized crime I announced that this session we will be bringing forward legislation to do just that.

Transport

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Minister of Transport announced the appointment of Mr. Justice Estey to do a review of the grain handling system, the CPR and the CNR have been issuing a blizzard of notices of discontinuance of rail lines. They are trying to get in ahead of the deadline.

If they are allowed to continue this, breaking the spirit of the Canada transportation act, if not the letter of the law, by the time Mr. Justice Estey gets his report in there is not going to be much left to report on because they will have chopped up piecemeal the entire rail system.

My question for the minister is will he use his ministerial powers to have a moratorium on rail line abandonments until Mr. Justice Estey has concluded his work?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is correct in the sense that the railways are expected to follow the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law. I have every confidence that they have been doing that and they will do it.

On the specifics, the hon. member made an allegation that somehow the railways are engaged in this kind of activity. I will certainly look into that and get back to him at the earliest convenience. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that they are acting in good faith and that they want to co-operate with Mr. Justice Estey and his commission.

[The Speaker]

That will bring to a close our question period for Wednesday.

My colleagues, I want to listen to a point of order and then I will go directly to tributes for the day. The point of order will be presented by the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Point Of Order

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, which was sent from the Senate on Monday, February 2.

Bill S-4 violates Standing Order 80 which states that “all aids and supplies granted to the sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, to limit and to appoint in all such bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants which are not alterable by the Senate”.

I would like to point out that while we in the official opposition support the principle of this bill, we are against the practice of introducing bills in the Senate for ethical reasons and, in this case, reasons that breach the financial privileges of this House as stated in our rules and as provided for in section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Specific to my argument is Bill S-4's attempt to enact proposed amendments to part IX of the Canada Shipping Act which seeks to substantially increase the limits of liability for owners of ships, docks, canals and harbours. The federal government is a major owner of ships, docks, canals and harbours. It will be liable under the terms of this bill.

Bill S-4 substantially increases ship owners' limits of liability anywhere from 300% to over 2,600%, depending on ship tonnage.

The liabilities for the owners of docks, for example the government, canals and ports and any persons for whose negligence from such an owner is responsible would be increased to the greater of $2 million or $1,000 times the tonnage of the largest ship that has used the dock, canal or port within the previous five years. If the loss or damage in question was the result of their personal negligence where the damage had been intended or where it had been known that the damage was probable, the owners of docks, canals or ports would lose the benefit of even that increased limitation. Therefore, not only does this bill increase the limit of liability upon the crown but it removes the benefit in a certain number of conditions.

On June 12, 1973 the Speaker ruled that Bill S-5, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, was out of order because the bill, while not in itself proposing a direct expenditure, did propose substantial additional liabilities on public moneys. The Speaker ruled that the bill infringed on the privileges of the House.

On September 23, 1991 the Senate Speaker ruled out of order a Senate bill that sought to extend war veterans' benefits to merchant seamen. The Speaker pointed out that the bill would give rise to claims by merchant seamen and their spouses against the government and would cause the government to incur liabilities.

The proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act would substantially increase the limits of liability upon the government, as was the case with the merchant seamen bill and the Farm Improvement Loans Act.

In the report of the special committee of the Senate appointed to determine the rights of the Senate in matters of financial legislation, it was concluded that the Senate cannot directly or indirectly originate one penny of expenditures of public funds or impose a cent of taxation on the people. This conclusion would support the Speaker's rulings with respect to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the merchant seamen bill and my arguments regarding Bill S-4.

This government by introducing this bill in the Senate has ignored the fact that through the centuries the principle has always been maintained that taxation requires representation and consent. This government has not figured out that the only body in Canada that meets this test is the House of Commons. The elected representatives of the people sit here, not in the other place.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask that you remove Bill S-4 from the order paper since it violates the financial privileges of this House.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support my colleague's point of order by addressing specifically the liability of the crown.

I would argue that the liability issue that my colleague has referred to regarding ships in section IX of the Canada Shipping Act is applicable to the federal crown despite the fact that this is not expressly stipulated in the act. The presumption of crown immunity from statute, in both its common law form and as enacted in section 17 of the Interpretation Act, only applies to statues which are prejudicial to the crown.

Liabilities for crown owned docks, canals or harbours are not imposed by the Canada Shipping Act, but arise from section 3(b) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, which states: “The Crown is liable in tort for the damages for which, if it were a private person of full age and capacity, it would be liable in respect of a breach of duty attaching to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property ”.

In the Alphonse Desjardins case, 1994, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that other provisions of the Canada Shipping Act did not apply to the crown, but that the provisions in part IX did apply to the crown. In that case a boat owned by the crown was charged with discharging pollutants into the St. Lawrence River, contrary to section 664 of the Canada Shipping Act. The application of an offence provision, such as section 664 in part XV, would prejudice the rights and interests of the crown.

Another more obvious reason why section 664 would not apply to a crown owned vessel is section 641 of the act, which declares that “this Act does not, except where specially provided, apply to ships belonging to Her Majesty”. There is no similar provision for government owned docks, canals or harbours.

Bill S-4 unmistakably constitutes an indirect demand for supply because it would leave the crown bound to make a demand for supply.

The government House leader keeps reminding this House that my party supported a Senate bill in the last Parliament. I would like to point out that the official opposition plans on supporting the principle of Bill S-4, Bill S-3 and Bill S-5. The principle in these bills is not what is at issue here.

What is at issue here is the principle of democracy. It is obvious from the minister's comments that he does not recognize that the people of Canada are represented in this House and not the unelected Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that I ask that you consider this argument which we have put forward today carefully and remove Bill S-4 from our order paper as soon as possible.

[The Speaker]

I think we are bordering on debate, but if there are other facts which hon. members would like to present, I am prepared to hear them.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support my colleague's motion.

Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 11, comments on the necessity to adjust the interpretation of our precedents and traditions in the light of changing circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, when this issue was first brought to your attention this citation was referenced in terms of the five parties which presently sit in the House of Commons, as opposed to the two which sit in the Senate.

I would also like to add the argument that when the Fathers of Confederation drew up the Constitution Act, 1867, they included a provision which restricted the Senate.

Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that:

Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.

Back in the 19th century most of the work of Parliament concentrated on the appropriation of money. Today the government has grown so large and is so extensively involved in the every-day lives of Canadians, it would make sense that this restriction upon the Senate be expanded.

The reason for restricting the Senate back in 1867 was because senators were unelected and unaccountable to the people. They are still unelected and they are still unaccountable to the people.

The evolution of our rules includes keeping the relevant rules, discarding those rules which no longer make sense and adopting new rules when new rules are needed. For example, members of this House are protected by the privilege of freedom of speech which goes back to the bill of rights of 1689. At the same time we are guided by rules which were adopted only a few short months ago which addressed the reality of five parties in this House.

The Senate issue today is more of a 20th century matter. Since the present day Senate simply does not fit into a modern democracy, we should consider bringing the Senate into the 20th century. To begin this process the government could end the practice of introducing bills in the Senate today. It is that simple.

I would ask that the Speaker consider my remarks, as well as those of my colleagues, and judge on them.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first this is not a question of privilege as was alleged from the beginning. If it were a valid point it would be a point of order. However, it is not a valid point at all. The Senate does not rule the bill to be out of order where it was introduced. The bill does not include a royal recommendation.

In the submissions of the members who have raised this, there are reflections on speeches of ministers, five parties in the House of Commons and so on. This has nothing to do with whether or not a bill requires a royal recommendation.

Finally, if the hon. members across are advocating a constitutional change, may I suggest that a point of order will not achieve it.

[The Speaker]

Yesterday a point of privilege was raised on another bill and I am still gathering evidence on that.

I would like to juxtapose the bill that is being referred to, I believe it is S-4, as the member said, and I would like to satisfy myself and I am sure hon. members will give me enough time. Just so we understand, this was raised as a point of order, not as a point of privilege and I will treat it as such.

If there are no other points of order, I am going to proceed to tributes. The first tribute is to a former parliamentarian, the Hon. Mark MacGuigan.

The Late Mark Macguigan

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Mark MacGuigan. He was a person of remarkable talents and abilities, with outstanding achievements as a scholar and professor of law, as a parliamentarian and cabinet minister, and finally as a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal. He had two earned doctorates, one in philosophy and one in law. He taught in the law schools of the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall.

Two of his students at the University of Toronto were none other than the present Minister of Finance and the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. I am sure that they would be the first to say that Mark's teaching helped prepare them for their current achievements and that any deficiencies on their part are surely their own responsibility.

It was not surprising that when the University of Windsor decided to establish a faculty of law it turned to Mark MacGuigan to be its founding dean. He came to Windsor in 1967 and by the spring of 1968 he had organized the school and was making it ready for its first students.

Pierre Trudeau was elected as Liberal leader in the spring of 1968. He called an election a few weeks thereafter and this led to the long time member for Windsor—Walkerville, the Hon. Paul Martin Senior, leaving the House of Commons to become government leader in the Senate. Many Liberals in the riding urged Mark to seek the Liberal nomination. He did so and went on to be elected in that famous 1968 general election.

Although relatively new to Windsor—Walkerville when first elected, he rapidly won the confidence of his constituents who re-elected him four successive times. That he sought office as a Liberal was not surprising. His father was a Liberal cabinet minister and later a judge in his home province of Prince Edward Island. Mark was proud of his island origins and Irish heritage. The Minister of Finance in a church service yesterday told the story that when as a child Mark was asked about his origins he said he did not know but that he knew one thing for sure and that was that he was a Liberal.

In the 12 years between 1968 and 1980, he set high standards in the quality of his work as a parliamentarian. He showed what many observers outside of this House do not sufficiently recognize and that is what a member of Parliament can do and achieve without first entering the cabinet.

He was chair of the special committee on statutory instruments in 1968-69, joint chair of the special joint committees on the Constitution of Canada in 1970-72 and again in 1978. In this capacity he made important contributions to the development of the concept of a Canadian charter of rights entrenched in a fully Canadian Constitution and what this should mean for the civil liberties of all Canadians.

He was chair of the justice committee in 1975 and chair of the subcommittee on penitentiaries in 1976. He was parliamentary secretary first to the minister of manpower and immigration and then to the minister of labour and multiculturalism. Finally in 1979 he was briefly opposition critic for the solicitor general.

With this successful parliamentary experience it should not have been too surprising that when Pierre Trudeau formed his last government in 1980 and he invited Mark into his cabinet, it was not in some junior post but rather first as foreign minister, then called the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and next as Attorney General and Minister of Justice.

As foreign minister he was an active voice for Canada around the world. As Minister of Justice he worked to bring the law closer to ordinary Canadians and to serve them better through the operation of our legal system.

He did not run in the 1984 election but was instead appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal. There he brought his intellect and legal scholarship to bear in an amazingly productive way. I am told that in his close to 14 years on the bench he wrote some 300 judgments. Most of them represented the majority view of the court and many have come to be considered as leading cases in the fields they covered.

I had the privilege of serving in this House with Mark for some 16 years. In fact his riding adjoined my own in the city of Windsor. There we shared countless platforms and events and worked together on projects important to our community. Here in Ottawa we worked together in our caucus and in cabinet.

Throughout, everything he did was touched by his personal simplicity, his humanity, his natural down to earth friendliness. He could speak. He could communicate on equal terms in the same direct friendly manner with everyone he met, whether they were foreign ministers of other countries, provincial attorneys general, blue collar workers or newcomers to Canada in his own riding.

Everything he did was inspired by his own deep religious faith, influenced by the great Roman Catholic religious philosophers he had studied in such depth, especially Saint Thomas Aquinas and his modern interpreter, Jacques Maritain. This faith was the basis for his commitment to the cause of human rights and civil liberties.

He believed, as he wrote in his book which was published just a few years ago, Abortion, Conscience and Democracy , that an acceptance of a pluralistic society is God's plan for the world.

I cannot conclude these remarks without noting the remarkable courage with which he fought against his final illness for several years. He continued during all this time his vital work as a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.

We have lost in Mark MacGuigan a remarkable human being, a great Canadian.

In 1995 Mark was awarded the Tarnopolski Medal for Human Rights by the Canadian section of the International Commission of Jurors. He reflected, I am sure, his view that his task and that of all of us was and is, to paraphrase the words of the 82nd Psalm, to judge the poor and fatherless, to do justice to the afflicted and destitute, and to rescue the poor and the needy.

Mark MacGuigan was a loving husband, father and grandfather. On behalf of the Government of Canada and the Liberal caucus, on my own behalf and also on behalf of his successor from Windsor, the current member for Windsor—Walkerville, I express sincere condolences and sympathy to Mark's wife, his children and his grandchildren. May his memory be as a blessing.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mark MacGuigan.

Mark MacGuigan served Canada in such a way as to set a standard for many Canadians to achieve. Not only did he serve in this House of Commons but he spent many remarkable years as a federal court judge.

Mark held portfolios in external affairs and justice before he was appointed to the bench in 1984. He was well known for his ardent support of the charter of rights and for his support of freedom of choice in the abortion debate.

We in this House are saddened by the death of a colleague who stood by his convictions and stepped out in front of the crowd to be heard.

Canada was changed forever by Mark MacGuigan's criminal code reforms and amendments to modernize the divorce law as well as the increased influence he had on reforms to immigration laws.

Today my colleagues in the Reform Party join with our colleagues in all parties to salute a dedicated Canadian who served his country so well. We also pass along our sincere regrets to his family and many friends across Canada.

Farewell, Mark MacGuigan.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues from the Liberal Party and the Reform Party to regret the passing of this former Liberal minister.

This minister, who was the Minister of External Affairs from 1980 to 1982 and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada from 1982 to 1984, was known as a competent minister, who showed respect for his opponents, was a perfectionist and, more importantly, made himself very available.

He was a native of Prince Edward Island. Like his father, who was a minister too and a Supreme Court judge, he studied law. He taught law at three universities. Many MPs past and present were his students, and he is remembered as an excellent professor and an outstanding communicator. This talent for communication eventually led him to a career in politics. Following his election in 1968, he sat in this House for 16 years.

I also remember him because, as a student and a young teacher interested in politics, I followed his career. I was deeply touched, for example, by the battle he waged for the American draft dodgers during the Vietnam war. He wanted to amend the Immigration Act.

As a member of Parliament, he was a model in terms of both attendance in the House and personal action of a member who believes in a cause. After his years as a minister, he left the political arena in 1984, after participating in the leadership race following Trudeau's departure. He was appointed a justice of the Federal Court of Appeal. His career as a judge was successful as well. However, he will be remembered mostly as a MP devoted to his constituents and a profoundly human man.

In my name and in that of all Bloc Quebecois members, I would like to extend our deepest condolences to all of his family and his party.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of all my NDP colleagues in adding our sincere condolences to the family of Mark MacGuigan.

I had the pleasure of serving in this House with Mr. MacGuigan from 1979 to 1984 and I remember him well.

We pay tribute this day to a distinguished career in the public service, a distinguished career in academia, which was recognized earlier by the Liberal member who spoke of his selection to head up the University of Windsor law school, a distinguished career in Parliament as a backbencher and as a minister, and a distinguished career after Parliament on the judiciary.

I want to remember him in particular as someone who self-consciously wrestled as a person of faith with the many difficult questions that people of religious orientation have to deal with in politics. He had to deal as a Roman Catholic with various difficult issues having to do with abortion and divorce.

I understand he wrote a book on these subjects and how to deal with these very difficult topics in a pluralistic society. I did not know about that book until I read about it in one of the obituaries. I now look forward to reading it because it seems to me that he was wrestling, with his considerable intellectual powers, with very difficult questions which all of us need to address.

This is one of the aspects of parliamentary life that sometimes goes unnoticed in the back and forth and the rough and tumble of this place. We sometimes miss the fact that many of us, and in this case Mark MacGuigan, wrestle at a competent and deep intellectual level with a lot of difficult issues. We pay tribute to someone who was willing to do that, to do it in the public domain and to offer his life as a service to Canada.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus to offer our sympathy to Mrs. MacGuigan, her children and the children of the Hon. Mark MacGuigan.

I want to take a moment to give thanks for his life and for his public service to Canada. Dr. MacGuigan's parliamentary career brought him in contact with many issues that still resonate around this House. He tried to improve the way this House does its work. He was the co-chairman of the special joint committee on the Constitution of Canada in 1971. He took an avid interest in the statutory instruments committee and understood its importance to the freedoms of all Canadians.

His ministerial career came at a time when Canada was examining its place in this hemisphere. The justice system having to deal with family relationships and the devastation caused by drunk driving was one the many issues he touched upon in his distinguished legal career. He was certainly an accomplished jurist and legal scholar and professor, as touched upon by some of the other members.

Mark MacGuigan leaves behind a record of achievement and respect for others upon which he reflected at a 1971 convocation at the University of Prince Edward Island where he said “institutions and people change slowly and one must not allow impatience even in the cause of righteousness to cause a lack of respect for the freedom of others to believe and live differently from us”. Very prophetic words.

As a dedicated thinker and tribune, he has come to the end of his life. Canadians and this House are better for his participation in public affairs. We mourn his passing.

The Late Mr. Bruce Beer

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on January 12, 1998 the long and distinguished life of Bruce Beer came to a peaceful conclusion after 87 memorable years. Residents of my riding of Mississauga East and others throughout the Peel region as well as today's deputy prime minister will affectionately recall a hardworking community minded friend who embodied grassroots politics.

In 1962 Bruce Beer stunned political observers when he was elected to the House of Commons and became the very first Liberal to represent Peel county in the 20th century. Residents in Peel remember his bubbly populist campaigns often quenched by his supporters' chants of “we want Beer, we want Beer”, which was obviously a winning slogan.

Peel residents showed so much respect for Bruce Beer that he was victorious in four consecutive elections. The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson recognized Bruce Beer as a man who emerged from the steepest challenges of the century to represent his community in Parliament. Mr. Pearson appointed him as parliamentary secretary to several ministers during his tenure, including finance minister Mitchell Sharp.

At the age of 12 Bruce Beer put his own education aside to help out on the family farm in difficult times and continued to sacrifice his clear academic potential in support of his family and community throughout the Great Depression.

Only at the end of that sparse era did Bruce Beer return to academics. Earning many scholarships, Mr. Beer graduated from the Ontario Agricultural College in 1939. For the next 20 years Bruce Beer earned the confidence of the many diverse farming communities in Peel. He was sowing the seeds of his future in politics.

After his groundbreaking victory for the Liberals in 1962, Beer continued to fight for the issues of greatest concern to his constituents. His own experiences in the Depression led to a staunch advocacy for farm loans programs and milk subsidies that maintained the strength of the farming communities in southern Ontario. He was a fixture on the agriculture committee and was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture for the bulk of his career where he could have maximum impact on the issues closest to his heart and community.

Mirroring the transition occurring in Peel County during his tenure as Peel's MP, Bruce Beer broadened his impact beyond agriculture. While representing rural farming communities as well as townspeople, Bruce Beer met the challenges of a region engaged in rapid transition toward urban industrialization. He received the post of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance at a time of unprecedented economic and industrial expansion in Canada and especially in Peel which has since expanded from one to seven ridings.

Mr. Beer continued to serve his community after retiring from public life in 1972, always making time to assist people in the community.

Mr. Beer is survived by his wife, three children and six grandchildren, who can all be proud to have known the man whose potential and hard work eclipsed the world of challenges and lead him to the House of Commons while never leaving his roots in the farming communities of southern Ontario.

I am sure all members of this House join me in extending heartfelt sympathies to Bruce Beer's family who can rest assured that his memories will live on in the House of Commons as they will throughout the region of Peel.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Bruce Beer and to extend sympathies on behalf of the Official Opposition to his family at this time of grief.

I listened with interest to the tribute that was paid to him just now and a couple of thoughts came to mind. One was this man was elected four times to the House of Commons, no small feat in and of itself.

I read through the obituary that was published in the Toronto Star following his death and, Mr. Speaker, I thought there are a couple of things that are very notable that you can tell about a man that you have never met before from the tributes his opponents pay to him. It was very interesting that one of the tributes paid to him was by someone who opposed him. The quote I think is worth repeating by a Conservative opponent who ran against him in 1965 and of course lost. He stated he “recalls Mr. Beer as a gentleman, honourable opponent and a good committee member and I cannot believe I am saying this about a Liberal but he was always approachable. I have never heard a bad word about Bruce”.

Would it not be good, Mr. Speaker, if all of us in our political life could go through four terms of office, if that was our case, and have our political opponents say such kind words?

I think too that Mr. Beer came from a generation that had to pull themselves up by their boot straps. As has been mentioned already, he went to work at 12 years of age, working in the dairy industry for 10 cents a day. There are stories that warm the heart but must bring tears to the eyes too when we think of the hard times that he must have gone through.

His daughter recalls in a fond way how her father would head out the door always singing and quoting poetry. As he stomped off to work, she said, “he would chant: Someone said it couldn't be done, but he with a chuckle replied that maybe he couldn't but he would not be the one who said it couldn't be done until he tried”.

I think he was obviously a man of laughter and had much to offer Parliament and Canada. We thank his family for the sacrifice that he made during his elected life and we grieve with them at his passing.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to offer condolences to the family and friends of Bruce Beer, who recently passed away at the age of 87.

After graduating from the Ontario College of Agriculture in 1939, Bruce Beer began a career as an ag. rep. Elected for the first time in 1962, he represented the people of the riding of Peel until his retirement from active politics in 1972.

During his time in Parliament, Bruce Beer was to serve as parliamentary secretary to Minister of Agriculture John Greene and Minister of Finance Mitchell Sharp, in the Pearson government.

In 1972, he decided not to seek re-election. He was appointed judge of the Citizenship Court, and held that position until his retirement in 1975.

As parliamentarians, we are all aware of just how demanding a life in politics is, and Bruce Beer's family must be proud of all his accomplishments.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP, I would like to add our sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Beer. We join in paying tribute to a life which was long and well lived. He was held in great respect by his community.

I did not have the honour of serving with Mr. Beer, but I understand from a colleague who did that he had the respect of all members of the House. He was a man who carried himself with a great deal of dignity and acted in a way which attracted the respect and admiration of all members of the House.

He was a great spokesperson for rural Canada and for his constituents.

For all of these things we express our gratitude and we pay tribute to him on the occasion of his death.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus with other members who have spoken in offering our sympathy to Bruce Beer's wife, his children and grandchildren, his sister and brother.

Bruce Beer was a member of this House during the turbulent 1960s, a period of great instability in the House of Commons. He reflected this when he spoke to the House for the first time on December 18, 1962, saying that he was not certain if he was giving his maiden speech or his farewell sermon. He left that as a question to be resolved posthumously.

As well, history will show that this was indeed his maiden speech in a long and distinguished career in this House. Re-election after re-election and several appointments as parliamentary secretary to a number of ministers, including the minister of agriculture, demonstrated Mr. Beer's competence and popularity in his community.

An examination of Hansard reveals that Mr. Beer vigorously championed the cause of farmers and rural communities, as well as urban areas of his constituency.

He helped to build his community, his country, and his service in this House reflects that. For that we are certainly grateful, and for his family who shared him with the people of Canada.

The Late David Orlikow

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel extremely privileged to be able to pay tribute to our dear friend and colleague, David Orlikow. I do so on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, my leader, and particularly those members from Manitoba, such as the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, who had a very close association with David for many years.

The constituency that I was elected to serve on June 2 is largely David Orlikow territory. I am reminded of that daily by his former constituents.

My personal goal is to achieve David Orlikow's high standards of service and his great fighting spirit. My hope today is to do justice to David Orlikow's memory on behalf of all of his constituents in Winnipeg North who were served so well and so faithfully by David Orlikow throughout his 26 years as a member of Parliament.

It is not an easy task to try to convey in the fullest sense the kind of contribution he made to our party, to his community and to his country; nor is it an easy task to capture the sense of great loss which we all feel at this time.

On behalf of everyone in this House I extend expressions of deep sympathy to his daughter, Leslie, his grandchildren and all members of his family.

Politics and the pursuit of social justice were David Orlikow's life work. He served in public life for 43 years and he served at all levels of government: school trustee, alderperson, member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly and member of Parliament for Winnipeg North between 1962 and 1988.

David Orlikow died on January 19, a few months short of his 80th birthday, fighting to the very end. He was, as we always knew him, a fighter for social justice, always demanding fair policies when it came to immigration policies, refugee policies, workers rights, always associated with the labour movement and free collective bargaining and a very important part of our party as a founding member of the New Democratic Party and a lifetime member of the CCF and the NDP.

I am sure there is not a person in this Chamber who knew David and worked with him or received one of his many phone calls who did not end up feeling a great sense of admiration and respect for David Orlikow.

We remember David Orlikow for his devotion to the people he was elected to serve, the priority he gave to constituency concerns and problem solving, his determination to achieve fairness one case at a time, his tenacious, unapologetic, no frills approach to getting the job done and his dogged persistence to pursue any injustice or any issue he felt was important. Just look at his record.

I did a quick count of all his House of Commons entries between 1962 and 1988 and came up with a staggering total of 2,906, and he did it all without a lot of fanfare and not much media attention. However, when he did get a headline we knew what David stood for. We knew how he saw his purpose as a member of Parliament. Speaking out against poverty, standing up for equality and fighting the banks, that was David Orlikow. Imagine what he would be saying today about the proposed bank merger.

That fighting spirit came through right to the end. He had conversations with several of us, including the member for Burnaby—Douglas, just days before he died about the need to convince the Canadian government to extend compensation to all the families of the victims of the Allan Institute and the CIA brainwashing experiments.

Today we feel the loss of a great parliamentarian, a social activist, a mentor, a friend and a colleague. Let us honour his memory by recommitting ourselves to achieving David Orlikow's high standards of political representation, public service and human compassion.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, today the government caucus joins with the House in paying tribute to the memory of Mr. David Orlikow who from 1962 to 1988 served as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, the former constituency I had the honour to serve since as his successor until the boundary changed in June last year. It now constitutes a significant part of my riding of Winnipeg North—St. Paul.

May I convey on behalf of the Liberal caucus and my constituents my deepest condolences to his immediate family and relatives.

Mr. David Orlikow left this earth on the 19 ultimo when the House of Commons was in recess. This week, as we begin another year and another chapter in the books of parliamentary history, we mourn the loss of a former colleague whose death reminds us of a chapter in history we ourselves will eventually place in the bookcases of this great House.

In death, our true legacy is measured whatever the magnitudes. In death, our time on earth takes on a more historical perspective.

We are reminded that we have had predecessors and we will have successors. Our time in this Chamber is only for a moment. For that moment we must fully dedicate ourselves to the best of our abilities, creativity and industry; yes, to the best of our minds and to the best of our hearts.

There is no assurance of longevity on this earth. There is only the assurance of a lasting legacy of good work. As we reflect today on the legacies of those who precede us, we are reminded of the importance of our own work in the present, the fruits of which will become the valuable legacies for those who succeed us.

We can never erase the moment when we took our oath and became a member of Parliament. For all of us here, our personal legacy began the very moment when we made the steadfast decision to serve the Canadian public in the way we knew best, to serve in Parliament, a place where we debate to reconcile competing philosophies, logics, claims and priorities.

We do so best guided by thinking straight from the mind and straight from the heart, as our prime minister has so eloquently expressed on more than one occasion.

I am sure for David Orlikow it must have been a most rewarding career, representing the former constituency of Winnipeg North for 26 continuous years. The years of commitment he dedicated to his constituents were hallmarks of his tenure.

Indeed it would be a daunting task to review page by page in Hansard the story of his parliamentary career, but we know he served his constituents well, for they elected him nine consecutive times, a political record by any standard.

Allow me to share with members one intervention he made by way of a member's statement on December 14, 1983 when he called for legislation to “ensure workers some right of control of new technology”. He was advocating that unless there was opportunity for consultation in the workplace the result would be a deplorable state of human and economic suffering.

He took the case of 15 Bell Canada telephone operators in Midland, Ontario who were to be displaced a month later when automation was to be introduced to the phone switchboard system. Writing on this case for the May-June, 1996 issue of the periodical This Magazine , author Heather Menzies observed “nothing came out of the intervention”.

This judgment would later prove to be premature and in fact wrong. Mr. Orlikow's effort may very well have planted a seed for others who advance similar causes.

A little over a decade later, in September 1997, the Government of Canada issued a report entitled “Valuing our People”, a report in part about the new technology and workforce of the future.

Allow me to quote a relevant paragraph from this document: “Public service workplaces can be made more efficient and better suited to the requirements of new technologies while improving employees' quality of life. Employees believe that all it will take is commitment, better use of state of the art technology and consultation with employees”. Let me underscore those two phrases, new technology and consultation with the employees.

Truly Mr. Orlikow had the foresight to recognize the future impact of this linkage 14 years earlier.

Let me conclude by saying it was with this vision, the vision of one David Orlikow, that won the support of his constituents for more than two and a half decades.

His colleagues who knew him best said of him David was a tireless defender of his constituents and champion of many causes over the years. In tandem with his peer, Mr. Stanley Knowles, he represented Winnipeg's colourful north in Parliament. I share this sentiment.

Indeed as a member of Parliament, Mr. Orlikow contributed his share. Mr. Orlikow knew and lived parliamentary life, secure in purpose, serving his constituents for a quarter of a century plus one year with unswerving commitment and dedication.

Although his time in this House and on this earth has come and gone, we know that what he had uniquely contributed as a member of Parliament and as a citizen of Canada will forever be etched in a chapter of the history books of this great nation.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to a person who has served our country in this Chamber, Mr. David Orlikow, who passed away on January 19.

It has often been said that every generation of Canadians stands on the shoulders of those who have gone on before and built the foundations of our country. I and my colleagues are aware of the valuable contribution Mr. Orlikow made in the second half of this century to public life in Canada. I would like to list a few of his qualities and achievements.

First, his long record of public service. He served his fellow Canadians for a total of 43 continuous years in elected office at four different levels of government. That is truly remarkable. From 1945 to 1951 he was a school trustee in Winnipeg. From 1950 to 1958 he was a Winnipeg city alderman. From 1958 to 1962 he was a member of the Manitoba legislature. As mentioned earlier, from 1962 to 1988 he was the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North. That means he had 18 consecutive wins. That is an achievement hard to match, a pretty good record.

Second, his involvement and advocacy in non-governmental organizations. Mr. Orlikow worked with various NGOs from the John Howard Society to the Elizabeth Fry, the Jewish Labour Committee and the Canadian Labour Congress.

These activities further demonstrated his concern for the many social issues that earmarked his parliamentary career. These issues included poverty, illiteracy, human rights, services for the disabled and workers rights. He fought tirelessly for these issues.

Third, his faithfulness to his political roots. He was faithful to the end to his political roots and the philosophy which he readily acknowledged were in the eastern European political traditions. He found these political expressions in voices in the CCF and the NDP in Canada. He was an active member of his party and sought to advance its cause and influence. He needs to be remembered and to paid tribute to as somebody who fought really hard for what he believed in always.

Fourth, he was a tireless worker on behalf of his constituents. This is one area of all of our parliamentary work that I am sure we would all aspire to. Mr. Orlikow was a great example, apparently dedicating total Saturdays and other days, from sunup to sundown, to have appointments with his constituents. It is no wonder they re-elected him as many times as they did when he offered that kind of service.

Finally, Mr. Orlikow was a husband, a father and a grandfather. Those are the things which last far longer than any parliamentary career.

Mr. Orlikow was predeceased by his wife Velma in 1990. He is survived by his daughter and two grandchildren. It is to those loved ones that we want to pay tribute, for no person is an island. Each of us who serves in public life knows how valuable and how important family and friends are. We would not be able to be here and do the job that we do unless there are many people who love us and support us back home.

I and my colleagues in the official opposition join in extending our sympathy and prayers to the total family and to those people who care about Mr. Orlikow.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of David Orlikow, who died January 19 at the age of 80.

He was born in Winnipeg in 1918 and began his political life in 1945 through involvement in his community first and then as city councillor with the City of Winnipeg until 1958. After serving as a member of the Manitoba legislature from 1958 to 1962, he was elected to the House of Commons for the first time in the June 18, 1962 general election under the banner of the New Democratic Party to represent the people of Winnipeg North. He sat in this House for 26 years consecutively.

Mr. Orlikow is also to be remembered for his involvement in human rights, as president of the Elizabeth Fry Society, as secretary on the human rights committee of the CLC and as director of the Jewish Labour Committee of Canada. His long career in public service is a most honourable one, and his family and friends should be proud of his accomplishments.